From Dialogue to Reckoning: What South Africa Needs Now
Image: IOL / Ron AI
'The People Shall Govern.' Not as metaphor, not as sentiment. As a promise. And a demand.
Thirty years into our democracy, South Africa does not need another listening tour, another facilitated workshop, or another high-level roundtable with branded lanyards. We need something deeper. Something braver. Something long overdue.
We need a reckoning.
The recent announcement by President Ramaphosa that South Africa will convene a National Dialogue, coordinated through NEDLAC and guided by an 'Eminent Persons Group', has stirred predictable fanfare and deep scepticism. It is not the idea of dialogue that alarms us. It is the fact that, for too long, dialogue has been deployed in South Africa not to deliver justice, but to delay it. In place of delivery, we have convened. In place of structural change, we have moderated. In place of urgency, we have performed unity.
We have been here before. And we cannot afford to be here again.
A country built on dialogue but rarely on equal terms
From Kliptown in 1955 to CODESA in 1991, South Africa's path to democracy was shaped by dialogue. But these moments were not equal meetings of minds they were unequal negotiations between a people in struggle and a regime in retreat. We must never forget that our political transition was never designed to dismantle all systems of power. It was a ceasefire, not a complete transformation. The elite pact that underpinned our 1994 breakthrough brought democratic rights but postponed economic redress.
Today, those delays have caught up with us.
We are the world's most unequal society. Millions of black South Africans still live under conditions that echo the structural geography of apartheid. Youth unemployment hovers above 60%. Public services are failing. State capture hollowed our institutions. Violence, corruption, and despair creep into the marrow of daily life.
And in this fragile, fractured context, we are now asked again to talk.
But before we do, we must ask: Who is asking for this dialogue? Why now? What for?
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
Dialogue, or Deflection?
Let us be honest. Much of the dialogue proposed today risks becoming elite-driven spectaclea performance of inclusivity without power-sharing. A repackaging of reconciliation in times of political turbulence. A soft cushion against the hard edges of growing public rage.
This new National Dialogue comes with high-profile names, big halls, logos and language like 'shared vision' and 'renewed compact.' But language is not justice. Logos do not build clinics. And dialogue without delivery breaks trust.
The danger is not in talking. The danger is in pretending that talk is enough.
Our Constitution already provides for participatory democracy. Parliament's committees, ward committees, SGB's, CPF's, RDP forums, municipal IDPs, Chapter 9 institutions all of these exist to facilitate public voice and state responsiveness. If we are serious about rebuilding national consensus, why not invest in strengthening those platforms rather than creating new ones?
The answer is clear: we don't have a participation problem we have a delivery problem. We don't lack dialogue. We lack action.
The Real Dialogue Happening Outside Power
While government convenes its forums, real dialogue happens daily in the silence of broken clinics. In the queues at SASSA. In the burnt tyres of protest. In the quiet rage of mothers burying sons lost to gang bullets or hunger. That is the unscripted, unmoderated, rawdialogue of a society crying for repair, real hope, real change.
To those who say this dialogue is necessary for cohesion: let us be clear. Cohesion cannot be built on inequality. Reconciliation cannot be revived while restitution is denied. Real unity requires more than slogans it requires justice that is seen and felt.
And to those who say this dialogue is about the future: we say this the future cannot be imagined until the past is confronted. Until the unfinished business of our transition is faced head-on. That business is redistribution. Dignity. Work. Land. Reform.
From National Dialogue to National Reckoning
What South Africa needs now is not a dialogue. It is a Reckoning.
A National Reckoning Plan time-bound, costed, public, and accountable.
Here is what it would look like:
1. Corruption Accountability
• Dedicated anti-corruption court.
• Public progress dashboard updated quarterly.
• No dialogue required. Just prosecutions.
2. Public Service Restoration
• Professionalise the civil service.
• Forensic audits across departments. Get rid of deed wood. Merit and competence based deployment.
• Treasury-approved clean-up plan. No slogans needed.
3. Violence and Safety Compact
• Dedicated gender-based violence units in all provinces.
• Resourced SAPS precincts in crime hotspots.
• Community-policing forums with real authority.
• Measurable 3-year targets to reduce violence by 70%.
4. Land and Housing
• Release state-owned land for housing and smallholder farming.
• Title deeds for informal settlements.
• Geospatial planning with public oversight.
• Justice, not just consultation.
5. Youth Jobs and Township Economies
• R10 billion fund for township infrastructure and small enterprise support.
• Remove licensing red tape for spaza shops and street traders.
• Localise procurement in municipalities.
• Youth opportunity desks in every ward.
6. A Real Platform for the People
• Strengthen Parliament's portfolio committees as dialogue forums.
• Fund civic education, SGBs, and ward committees.
• Turn Parliament into the true arena of people's voice not hotels and ballrooms.
Dialogue Must Not Substitute Delivery
Dialogue is not inherently dangerous. But dialogue without consequence is corrosive. It drains hope. It teaches citizens that participation is performance. That their voices are heard, but never acted upon. That engagement is a dead-end.
The greatest threat to democracy is not apathy. It is the experience of being listened to but ignored.
This time, there will be no Mandela to hold us together when we fail. This time, failure will explode. Not into civil war, but into permanent distrust, institutional erosion, and a vacuum that extremists, secessionists, and seditionists are already preparing to fill.
What Must Be Done
This National Dialogue, must be grounded in three non-negotiables:
1. Equal Participation
No one should be asked to "participate" unless they are also being resourced, empowered, and heard. Give logistical and financial support to informal workers, rural voices, and youth collectives.
2. Binding Outcomes
Every agreement must be costed, time-bound, and linked to implementation agents. We need deliverables, we need accountability, we need delivery, not declarations and leaders who are not only shocked and surprised.
3. Institutional Anchoring
The dialogue must be tied into Parliament and the Executives and all levels, not orbitaround and away from it. All outcomes must flow into keeping elected leaders accountable from the top, our President, Ministers, Premiers, MEC's, Mayors, MMC's to councillors via committee work, legislative reform, and budget planning. Let's make Performance Management work and delivery real.
The Real Dialogue is in Delivery
Dialogue is not neutral. It either reinforces power or redistributes it. South Africans don't need to be heard again. They need to be answered.
The ANC must not lead from caution or convenience. We must lead from courage. From conviction. And from truth. The promise of 1994 has been deferred too long. Now is the time to deliver on it not through words, but through work.
Let us move from dialogue to reckoning. From performance to policy. From symbolism to substance. Let this be the generation that made justice real. Let this be the moment that reclaimed delivery as democracy.
* Faiez Jacobs is a former Member of Parliament, political organiser, and strategic facilitator committed to inclusive governance, ethical leadership, and the renewal of South Africa's democratic promise.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL Opinion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
DA accuses ANC of double standards
JOHANNESBURG- Political drama is heating up in the Government of National Unity (GNU). The DA says the ANC is playing favourites by firing Deputy Minister, Andrew Whitfield but letting Minister Nobuhle Nkabane off the hook despite serious allegations. On Tuesday, the DA hit back by laying charges against Nkabane for allegedly spinning a web of lies about an independent panel that greenlit political appointments to SETA boards. With budget votes on the horizon, the DA is gearing up to call out corruption where they see it. Political analyst, Ntsikelelo Breakfast says the DA wants to expose how President Cyril Ramaphosa according to them was applying double standards. "On the one hand the President dismisses on of [DA's own] for not getting approval for a trip he was not ment to undertake, but on the other hand turns a blind eye to some of the members of the executive who have been at fault," he said. While Breakfast says he sympathies with the DA, he disagrees with the party on how they have responded to this matter in terms of their announcements of pulling out from the National Dialogue.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
DA backtracks on motion of no confidence, commits to GNU
DA Federal Council chairperson Helen Zille says her party will abandon tabling the motion of no confidence against President Cyril Ramaphosa "for now". Image: Cindy Waxa / Independent Newspapers The DA has backtracked on its threat to implement a motion of no confidence against President Cyril Ramaphosa, despite tensions between the two parties. DA Federal Council chairperson Helen Zille confirmed on Tuesday that her party would not be proceeding with the motion "for now", but emphasised that they would not be bullied by the ANC within the Government of National Unity (GNU). Experts have viewed the move by the DA leader as "grandstanding" and "seeking attention" because the party knows that they can't afford to leave the GNU. The DA and the ANC have been at loggerheads since the axing of Trade and Industry deputy minister Andrew Whitfield last week, resulting in the DA announcing that it would be withdrawing from the National Dialogue. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The party has since accused Ramaphosa of double standards, saying that he condoned corruption after he became mum following the DA's calls to fire Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane. Nkabane is embroiled in the appointment of boards for Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs). Political analysts have weighed the situation, with some suggesting that the DA is grandstanding with their threats. Professor Sipho Seepe said that the DA is grandstanding and that the market would quickly self-correct if the rand were to crash. "The DA likes grandstanding. Yes, the rand may crash, but the market will quickly self-correct. "Having said this, the ANC is unlikely to kick the DA out of the GNU. The GNU is big business. The very big business had funded Ramaphosa's presidency. Ramaphosa is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds him," Seepe said. He said the DA hated the idea of the ANC, EFF, and the MK Party government so much that it would rather stick it out. "Besides, the decision to walk out of the GNU will be dictated by big business, not Helen Zille…The same applies to the idea of tabling the motion of no confidence… Such a step would leave the ANC with no option but to kick the DA out of this marriage of inconvenience. It is a gamble that many in the DA would frown upon," Seepe said. Another analyst, Sandile Swana, said Zille's reasons for staying in the GNU were arbitrary and not scientifically grounded. "The DA has not been able to grow the economy by more than 2% in the Western Cape. They have lingered around 2% but it was required to grow at 5.4%. The DA has governed the Western Cape and Cape Town for some time. There is increased unemployment in the province and the metro, more than in any other province in the country. "The DA and big business are using the GNU to prevent the MKP and the EFF from being part of the government," Swana said. He said if an opportunity would present itself, the EFF would take up a place in the GNU and continue working with Ramaphosa as they did not agree that Ramaphosa handled the Phala Phala matter correctly. Zille said that while the DA has the numbers to potentially outvote the president, they would instead take intermediate steps to address their concerns. "The president can fire us from the GNU, and there are many people from the ANC wishing that he would fire us. But here is the thing, if he fires us the rand will crash, the economy will go into a tailspin, investors will withdraw, unemployment will increase, and we will probably be pushed out of AGOA and tariffs will go up." Zille, however, said that it did not mean that her party would be bullied by the ANC within the GNU and that they had a plan if Ramaphosa booted out the DA from the GNU.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
The Real Genocide: South Africa's Betrayal of Its African Majority
Gillian Schutte explores how the Genocide Convention's principles apply to the systemic oppression of South Africa's African majority, revealing a slow genocide that challenges our understanding of justice and equality. Image: IOL In 1948, in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the Genocide Convention was adopted to prohibit not only the mass killing of populations, but also their systematic destruction through prolonged deprivation. Article II(c) of the Convention defines genocide to include the 'deliberate infliction on the group of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' This clause was intended to capture structural mechanisms of annihilation that may not involve overt violence, but which nonetheless result in the steady elimination of a people. In 2025, the conditions under which the African majority indigenous to South Africa are forced to live closely resemble those anticipated by the drafters of that clause. Against this legal and historical framework, the claim by some Afrikaner groups that they are victims of genocide is not only absurd, but deeply cynical. The real slow genocide is unfolding daily, and not against the privileged white farmers but against the African majority, whose conditions of life have been deliberately structured to remain unliveable. More than three decades after the end of apartheid, South Africa remains one of the most unequal societies in the world. According to the World Bank (2022), the top 10% of the population controls more than 85% of household wealth. Oxford University's 2024 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) reports that over 25 million South Africans continue to live in severe multidimensional poverty. The overwhelming majority of this population is the African. The MPI captures deprivations across education, health, housing, water, sanitation, and nutrition. These are measurable exclusions from the basic elements of life. Racial inequality remains deeply entrenched. A 2023 report by Statistics South Africa found that 64.2% of African majority households lived below the upper-bound poverty line, compared to 1.2% of white households. The African majority is overrepresented across all categories of deprivation. Seventy-five percent of unemployed individuals are from this majority. Eighty-seven percent of people living in informal settlements are from the African majority. More than 70% of households relying on woefully inadequate social grants for survival fall within this group. The slow genociding of the Black and poor in South Africa is no longer explained by the legacy of apartheid alone. It is the result of a post-apartheid order that institutionalised inequality through policy, economic restructuring, and elite consensus. What was promised as transformation became management. Redistribution was replaced with fiscal discipline. Land reform was stalled through bureaucratic impasse. Economic ownership remained virtually unchanged. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The country's political transition was paralleled by an economic settlement aligned to global neoliberal frameworks. From the early 1990s, the new government came under pressure from international financial institutions and Western governments, particularly the United States, to commit to market-friendly reforms. This included the liberalisation of trade and capital flows, a focus on inflation targeting, and the privatisation of public services. These policies were formalised in the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy in 1996. The result was the absorption of the new state into a global system that privileged investor confidence over social redress. In this context, poverty among the African majority became institutionalised through structural austerity. Basic services remain underfunded. According to the Auditor-General's 2023 report, only 41 of 257 municipalities received clean audits. Many are unable to provide clean water, maintain sewage systems, or ensure waste collection. Public health facilities are under-resourced. Hospitals in rural areas operate without functioning equipment, while clinics in informal settlements routinely face medicine shortages. Schools in poor communities often lack electricity, running water, and qualified teachers. In 2022, over 4,500 schools were still using pit latrines. Far from being abstract deficits, these are measurable forms of neglect that directly affect life expectancy and health outcomes. In 2023, the average life expectancy for the Black and poor was 64 years, compared to 77 for white South Africans. The mortality rate for children under five in the poorest quintile is three times higher than in the wealthiest. Malnutrition among children under five has increased over the last five years, particularly in provinces with high unemployment and food insecurity. The psychological impact is equally devastating. A study published in The Lancet (2023) found that suicide rates among youth from the Indigenous African majority in South Africa have risen steadily since 2018, with poverty, hopelessness, and unemployment identified as key drivers. Gender-based violence, substance abuse, and intra-community violence are all symptoms of sustained structural abandonment. These conditions reflect a strategy of economic apartheid underpinned by political inertia. The mechanisms of this containment are enforced through monopoly capital and state complicity. A handful of corporations continue to dominate key sectors of the economy. These firms remain largely white- or foreign-owned, and their profits are often transferred offshore. The state acts less as regulator and more as facilitator, offering tax incentives and infrastructure support while communities living near mining zones or agricultural estates remain without clean water or basic services and are exposed to unregulated blasting and life threatening pollution. Economic policy is crafted in consultation with business interests. Social policy, by contrast, is treated as a liability. These dynamics are legitimised through the language of governance and reform, but they function as instruments of slow elimination. The majority is governed at a distance, spoken for in summits, referenced in policy statements, yet never materially prioritised. When they protest, they are met with violence. When they vote, they are promised inclusion. When they die, they are listed in aggregate. The Government of National Unity (GNU) formed in 2024 represents a continuation of this deprivation strategy. It maintains the neoliberal model. It is an alliance of economic custodianship. Austerity remains intact. Redistribution is avoided. The poor are once again promised delivery through institutional harmony, while the economy continues to serve the elite. This is political convergence around the status quo. The slow genociding of the Indigenous African majority in South Africa conforms to the logic identified by the Genocide Convention. The state and its economic partners have constructed conditions of life that are not survivable over time. The infrastructure of social reproduction -health, education, housing, employment - has been systematically undermined. The result is premature death on a mass scale, disintegration of communities, and intergenerational trauma. The Convention's clause on conditions of life does not require mass graves. It requires evidence of structural processes that lead to physical destruction. That evidence is abundant. What distinguishes South Africa's case is the normalisation of this destruction through the language of democracy. The state performs concern. It hosts dialogues. It commissions reports. But the material conditions do not shift. The poor are slowly erased through inaction, underdevelopment, and neglect that is both chronic and targeted.
